God is a Metaphor

#146 by drsohail,

Dear Dr. Sohail,

This has everything to do with your article. It`s about God being a Metaphor and ancient scriptures being myths, and incest has something to do with it. Or don`t you think so?

The moral of the story is as follows:

When you say ...

when humanity reaches the stage of mental growth and cultural evolution when most people can understand scriptures as folklore and not as divine revelations, can view them as mythology rather than stories, and can differentiate facts from fiction...

...then you better be prepared that this position will be challenged with proof that all morality springs from ancient scriptures, which are embedded in your mind ... hard-wired. And not from evolution of human mind.

If you deny that, then you have to accept that brother/sister sexual relations are quite OK because there`s no rational basis not to allow them .. (forget kids ... this German couple is not fighting about kids as I`ve said a dozen times ... they`re just fighting for sex).

And if brother/sister sexual relations cannot be denied as you have said and Malik Saheb has also said, provided there`s no consequential impact like physically impaired children, then there`s no reason for disgust, and no reason for the State to outlaw it, and you must accept that. This is the rational basis. You have to support it. You can`t oppose brother/sister marriage and/or sexual relations even outside marriage for any reason other than ancient scriptures embedded in your mind. If you want to expunge those, that`s fine.

But do you really want to do that? That`s the next question.

As for the `` you can`t fcuk (did not even spell it right...Freudian slip) your sister or your mother...period)``, perhaps you don`t know the Chowk censor system. Please try typing `fcuk` with the correct spellings and posting it.

But by now, you seem to be clutching at straws.

Regards.

(P.S. I didn`t see your usual signature `Smiles` in this post. Any particular reason?)

malik sahib:
zeemax needs the answers with proper references to ``ancient scriptures`` and the glorious Sunnah-e-Rasool. Your well reasoned post(#150) that have blown a Allah-shaped is not what he is looking for.

GT:
I did an exercise similar to that in an algorithm class awhile back. Does this Set Theory problem has a name. I want it for reference.
On a bit of a tangent: I came across probably the dumbest argument in favor of Delusionalism which happens to be since, reason exists within belief and since believing it to be ``TRUE`` in ``human mind`` makes the rational systems work, therefore, Belief is above and beyond reason and it can never be dichotomized with reason as in Belief vs. Reason. This is probably the worst kind of douchbaggery, I`d seen in a long time.

Dear zeemax,

What I meant was that if you can come up with a method which can guarantee that sex will never lead to conception between these couples, you can make a good case in favor of incest. We live in a world in which practicality of an act determines its virtue. For example, smoking is discouraged not because the act of enjoying smoking is wrong (nicotine is not harmful for a man). It is the side effects which increase your long term risk of disease. If you can invent a cigarette that can provide nicotine without these effects, all the disgust around smoking that has been invented in the recent past will disappear and smoking will become as `cool` as was in the 60s and 70s again.

By persistence, I meant that the need for incest should have a reason to sustain. As in the case of homosexuality, we can convince ourselves that no matter what we teach in books, no matter what drugs will make our children take, you will have some homosexuals in the population in the end. This creates a need to address and solve the problem on a permanent basis. If incest is something which at least some people want on an ongoing basis and the risks associated with it in terms of offsprings can be mitigated, a strong case in favor of allowing can be made. I will then vote in favor of it.

Now I want to come to the point of disagreement with you. Incest is not disgusting because it is written in the book. To give you an example, is it written in the book that you should not eat rotten food? I don`t think it is `haram` to eat rotten food. But since it is not good for you, you usually find it disgusting when it smelling in a certain way. This is a classic example of how we develop a sense of something being disgusting for us if it is never useful for us. Similarly, many muslims find sea-food disgusting where islam doesn`t really disallow it. You are probably right that for muslims, the disgust is amplified because it has been sanctioned by the religion but even if you get rid of religion, a good level of disgust will remain there which has practical reason to develop and sustain. And yes, in a completely liberal society, you will find occasional cases of incest here and there (less than homosexuality), which would be considered normal, unless a situation arises which I mentioned above (sex not leading to conception) when it may become more common but those decisions will be made on cultural grounds.

``It`s the 2nd part that I have a problem with. I am not yet fully able to articulate this problem and can only be speculative. I speculate that the process of empirical verification itself is derived from some axioms and the ultimate axioms of science are ``ASSUMED to be true`` . ``

The problem exists in your head. Empirical verification to support the axioms of a logical system makes the difference between generically speaking a Law and one man`s Delusion. That`s why you can only Believe and can never communicate what is it that you call `X`/`God`. To be able to demonstrably prove your proposition, you would need a mutually agreed upon framework that comes from empiricism.

I also have a feeling that when you say `TRUE` you are mixing it with `TRUE` as it is taken in the religious sense. They are different.

GT: I`ll come back to your post later.

Re: GT #141

There are actually 2 parts to what you are saying.

The first part is a purely logical exercise. You start with ``statements ASSUMED to be true`` (I meant the same thing when I said ``defined to be true``). Let`s call them axioms. Then you derive statements that are logically consistent with the axioms (I guess you have to define the rules of logic too). All these statements are considered true. Here, true means logically consistent with axioms. Since this is a purely logical exercise you can come up with any number of different axioms and come up with unlimited sets of statements, all internally consistent with their own axioms. (Of course, all of them will run into problems
described in #107).

The 2nd part is determining the axioms. Here you invoke empirical verification. That is used to select one set of axioms and declare them to be the `scientific` truth. This set of axioms may change over time as a result of more empirical tests. But the basic pricnciple is that it is always derived from empirical verification. And, of course, these scientific statements also run into #107.

I don`t have a problem with the 1st part. It`s the 2nd part that I have a problem with. I am not yet fully able to articulate this problem and can only be speculative. I speculate that the process of empirical verification itself is derived from some axioms and the ultimate axioms of science are ``ASSUMED to be true`` .

That`s why I was hoping on a previous board that Mr Gill would come up with an example of a scientific axiom that was derived from empirical verification. Unfortunately, he came up with the wrong one.

(PS. This has nothing to do with the existence of God)

zeemax:
``Disgust`` is something you are conditioned to. That`s the answer. Like for instance after living your entire life in sin (earning and feeding yourself on interest) your apparent deterioration into an infantile state when grave and Allah ka Azaab beckons. So, now you chase the metaphorical umbilical chord on chowk.com for that maternal-acceptance, you were ``conditioned`` to when you were growing up.

My turn to question now:
I am assuming you are about the magic number 53 or somewhere around. Do you feel like proposing to a 9 year old girl for harkening back to your ancient scriptures and their Author? It must be an exhilarating thought to be at the age to fulfill the Sunnah-e-Rasool?

Re: # 145

dear zeemax....the article was titled GOD IS A METAPHOR and you made it about INCEST

and challenged everyone who did not agree with your moralistic view about human

sexuality. the climax of your dialogue was...` you can`t fcuk (did not even spell it

right...Freudian slip) your sister or your mother...period) and then said `I`ve let Dr. Sohail

off the hook``...so what were you trying to prove with this marathon dialogue...what is the

moral of the story? so that I am prepared next month when I send my next article...sohail

... of-course .. it may be that one brother feels the disgust and desists, but another brother doesn`t .. but the sister is both`s sister ... and the father ... dunno which way he goes ... so ...

It goes on and on. But never mind. I`ve let Dr. Sohail off the hook.

Arrey Bhai ...

The disgust is there because of the ancient scriptures. That`s all. The scriptures say ``You can`t fcuk your sister or your mother ... period``, and these are the moral values. No nitpicking and all that stuff. No ifs and buts. It`s a rule.

Everyone here is scratching their heads and working hard to come up with an answer, but they can`t. No humanism or atheism nor anything else can explain that `disgust` which all of you feel when it comes to that. These are the values which are eternal, not evolved with time nor the human mind. You will never accept it when applied to your own selves.

I won`t force this subject anymore.

Respectfully,

Zeemax.

...contd...#142

I missed this part:

....my current stand on it would be to allow it if is backed by some good practical reasons guaranteeing its persistance. I hold that the disgust that people have against it is purely consequence based and has no rational value.

This sounds fair. Yes it has no rational value. But the disgust is there. Why?

So it is clear you support brother/sister sexual relations if it is backed by some practical reasons ....

You mean if there`re no other females around to have sex with, which is a practical reason ... you might as well take the one who`s right there under the same roof as you ... as well as being emotionally dependent on you ... that`s easy. (of-course you know that by you, I don`t mean YOU, so pls don`t be offended).

Unless you have any other practical reason in mind, which I would like to know about. Also, do you mean ``guaranteeing its persistance`` to mean a guarantee that they`ll never have kids?

Just a few clarifications please.

Regards.

Regards.

#138 by malikjahanzeb,

Dear Mailk Saheb,

My question was, and pardon me for repeating, whether you will support the brother/sister German couple in their legal fight to have sexual relations.

Firstly, it has nothing to do with off-spring. That`s not what they`re fighting for. They want to have sexual relations as husband and wife and properly registered as husband and wife, which they were, before their marriage was nullified by law. That`s all.

Now, do you support that or not? That is the simple question, and I don`t know why you call it a a `trick` question.

Is it because you will not commit to a position which is against your moral values even though you cannot justify it in the light of humanism? Even though you belong to the evolved human mind of Dr. Sohail`s clan as you have said?

I hope you answer it. If you have a position, you must state it clearly. :)

Regards.

Re: # 135

khurram:

You are right #134 is kinda strange!? I was wondering what got to you.

As far as statements go you DO NOT `define` a true statement. Here is what you do:

1. You start with a frame of reference. A frame of reference is a set of statements ASSUMED to be true. For example the following provides a frame of reference:
(a) ``All elephants have tusks and only elephants have tusks.``
(b) ``The weight of any elephant cannot be less than 50kg``

2. You then HYPOTHESIZE that a statement is true in that defined frame of reference. For example, based on (a) and (b) you for example could say:

(c) ``B is an animal with a tusk and hence it is an elephant.``
(d) ``B does not have a tusk and hence it is an elephant.``

3. Now note that, given (a) and (b) [ant this is very important] (c) is logically CONSISTENT but (d) is logically INCONSISTENT. Most theoretical, scientific or mathematical, work is focused on this exercise. For example, if I assume that the Axiom of choice is true then one can show that ``The law of induction`` is it`s equivalent.

4. Next comes empirical verification. You go about catching animals and seeing whether they have tusks or not and if they have whether they are above 50 kgs or not. If all your data agree with the HYPOTHESIS you say that ``ONE CANNOT REJECT THE FACT THAT (c) IS TRUE. Unfortunately, we often tend to then say that (c) is TRUE in the context of (a) and (b). [NOTE: NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REJECT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT GOD EXISTS, though religious types will say it is not a hypothesis it is simply true that God exists].

5. There is more here though. Suppose you find an animal with a tusk which weighs 45kgs. What do you do. Note, you simply cannot reject the hypothesis (c). You have to reject the TRUTH of (a) too. That is you reject the frame of reference.

So far so good and we do not seem to have a problem. However, in #107, I highlight how we may run into problems even with the above procedure which is accepted by mainstream science.

Re #139, drsohail,
Post #134 is not mine. This is a chowk bug. if 2 people happen to submit at the same moment then one of the posts gets overwritten. My post was overwritten by bjkumar`s post from the Xari Jalil article.

Re: # 134

dear khurram....what did i miss? who are you responding to about depression and suicide.

sincerely sohail

Re: # 131 zee,

Since I happen to be a member of the same clan dr sohail is, I can try to briefly answer your question:

If the state thinks that the offsprings of these incestuous marriages will be its future subjects, it will base the decision on their future wellbeing. So, the state will ban having children as a result of incest just because parents do not have a complete ownership of their children`s rights. This is just parallel to the law that you cannot physically abuse your own child in western countries.

A more interesting question would be, if incest is okay if it has zero risk of leading to offsprings. I think this is a trick question and my current stand on it would be to allow it if is backed by some good practical reasons guaranteeing its persistance. I hold that the disgust that people have against it is purely consequence based and has no rational value.

Dr sb, you can add on this.....

Trying again...
Re; #129 malikjahanzeb
I am not sure I fully understand this post. You seem to be making 2 points. First is that the CONTENTS of moral systems are determined by the contingencies of evolutionary history. The second is that the experience of the unconditionality of the moral imperative is some kind of a `deception` .As for the first point, I am sure you are aware that this is not the only explanation of contents of traditional moral systems. There have been others based on, for example, class struggle or gender roles.All these are valid up to a point. They help in uncovering contingent factors underlying moral precepts. They
are valid as a protest against false absolutism. The danger is that they then go on to set themselves up as another false absolutism.
The second point, I would dispute. There is no getting away from the experience of the unconditional. Theories like the above are themselves an attempt to find a deeper expression of the unconditional as truth and morality.